5 ms·

Or, this might actually be another important problem that humanity should find worthy of recognizing and finally solving.

by spion 5y ago

dragontamer 5y ago
Both Pulitzer and Ben Franklin are national heroes for their ability to levy the masses and gain popular support. Problem #1 is explaining to people that the outrage-filled Yellow press is a problem in the first place. Too many people yell "free speech" and "freedom", and point out these heroes of the past. People don't even think this is a problem. So it won't get solved. If you can convince enough people that maybe we should do something about this, feel free to do so.
- spion 5y ago
  Lots of things will need to happen, I agree. One thing that is happening is that social media is escalating the problem so much that its becoming visible to everyone, which in turn will increase the demand to do something about information quality (including defining what it is or is not). This seems to be already in progress. Another thing I'm hoping for is that we can get NLU that is advanced enough to detect and elevate great quality material (both from research but also from educational perspective) that can successfully counteract "yellow journalism" and misinformation. We could combine this with NLU that can detect common techniques that take advantage of flaws in our reasoning abilities. I'm actually optimistic this may be possible now. I also suspect it won't be necessary to go against free speach to achieve this.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > I also suspect it won't be necessary to go against free speach to achieve this. We only need to look at the misinformation from 10 years ago to see how quickly "free speech" comes into play as a counter-argument. "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama was born in Kenya" are two pieces of misinformation. Explain what methodologies you'd do to stop these pieces of misinformation from spreading on Facebook, Twitter... or hell... Fox News / traditional media. Any such restriction you think up with will immediately bring out the free-speech advocates. People want the "freedom" to spread these lies around for political gain. -------- Its easier to use 10-year-old conspiracies because they're no longer "hot". I'm sure there are still people who believe in this misinformation today, but they're more riled up about current misinformation rather than past misinformation.
    - spion 5y ago
      > Explain what methodologies you'd do to stop these pieces of misinformation from spreading on Facebook, Twitter... or hell... Fox News / traditional media. Explaining that these sources of information are not reliable, because they use techniques to manipulate public opinion. We have to discredit entire subsets of media that aren't willing to give up manipulative practices. Saying that we can and should demand higher quality for our information, just as we demand high quality for other products. We make all kinds of (life) decision based on information. Offering an alternative, better source of information, which is transparent, has a well defined methodology, can "show you the work" if you want to see it. One where you will know people put a lot of effort into producing high quality material and went to great length to avoid common pitfalls of human reasoning. A new kind of media to improve the quality of our lives by improving the quality of our information. Free speach is totally fine to continue existing. Traditional media can also continue to exist. That doesn't mean we have to take it seriously - nobody bans tabloids either, but we don't put much into them.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        > Explaining that these sources of information are not reliable, because they use techniques to manipulate public opinion. We have to discredit entire subsets of media that aren't willing to give up manipulative practices. Sure. I can believe that's a step in the right process. But have you ever tried to discredit Fox News for pushing the lie that "Obama is a Muslim" ?? Or "Obama was born in Kenya" ?? Even if you point out that a certain news publication does this, no one really seems to care in my experience. ------- Look, people believe Obama was not born in the USA because they _want_ to believe that their political opponents are cheating at the process. And Fox News simply delivers to them what they want. Cater to people's worst desires and worst beliefs... you know, those beliefs that no one else is willing to discuss... and you'll become a trustworthy friend of theirs. Similarly: people want to be optimistic about COVID19. They want to believe in a cure (that isn't that cure that liberals are pushing). So now you have Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. Give them the optimism they so desire, and they'll believe you. People are right to be scared and afraid of COVID19. People are right to search for a cure and have optimism. But its when these media outlets feed on these fears and pushes misinformation that things get dangerous.

Or, this might actually be another important problem that humanity should find worthy of recognizing and finally solving.

by spion 5y ago

Or, this might actually be another important problem that humanity should find worthy of recognizing and finally solving.

dragontamer 5y ago

Both Pulitzer and Ben Franklin are national heroes for their ability to levy the masses and gain popular support. Problem #1 is explaining to people that the outrage-filled Yellow press is a problem in the first place. Too many people yell "free speech" and "freedom", and point out these heroes of the past. People don't even think this is a problem. So it won't get solved. If you can convince enough people that maybe we should do something about this, feel free to do so.

spion 5y ago
Lots of things will need to happen, I agree. One thing that is happening is that social media is escalating the problem so much that its becoming visible to everyone, which in turn will increase the demand to do something about information quality (including defining what it is or is not). This seems to be already in progress. Another thing I'm hoping for is that we can get NLU that is advanced enough to detect and elevate great quality material (both from research but also from educational perspective) that can successfully counteract "yellow journalism" and misinformation. We could combine this with NLU that can detect common techniques that take advantage of flaws in our reasoning abilities. I'm actually optimistic this may be possible now. I also suspect it won't be necessary to go against free speach to achieve this.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > I also suspect it won't be necessary to go against free speach to achieve this. We only need to look at the misinformation from 10 years ago to see how quickly "free speech" comes into play as a counter-argument. "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama was born in Kenya" are two pieces of misinformation. Explain what methodologies you'd do to stop these pieces of misinformation from spreading on Facebook, Twitter... or hell... Fox News / traditional media. Any such restriction you think up with will immediately bring out the free-speech advocates. People want the "freedom" to spread these lies around for political gain. -------- Its easier to use 10-year-old conspiracies because they're no longer "hot". I'm sure there are still people who believe in this misinformation today, but they're more riled up about current misinformation rather than past misinformation.
  - spion 5y ago
    > Explain what methodologies you'd do to stop these pieces of misinformation from spreading on Facebook, Twitter... or hell... Fox News / traditional media. Explaining that these sources of information are not reliable, because they use techniques to manipulate public opinion. We have to discredit entire subsets of media that aren't willing to give up manipulative practices. Saying that we can and should demand higher quality for our information, just as we demand high quality for other products. We make all kinds of (life) decision based on information. Offering an alternative, better source of information, which is transparent, has a well defined methodology, can "show you the work" if you want to see it. One where you will know people put a lot of effort into producing high quality material and went to great length to avoid common pitfalls of human reasoning. A new kind of media to improve the quality of our lives by improving the quality of our information. Free speach is totally fine to continue existing. Traditional media can also continue to exist. That doesn't mean we have to take it seriously - nobody bans tabloids either, but we don't put much into them.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > Explaining that these sources of information are not reliable, because they use techniques to manipulate public opinion. We have to discredit entire subsets of media that aren't willing to give up manipulative practices. Sure. I can believe that's a step in the right process. But have you ever tried to discredit Fox News for pushing the lie that "Obama is a Muslim" ?? Or "Obama was born in Kenya" ?? Even if you point out that a certain news publication does this, no one really seems to care in my experience. ------- Look, people believe Obama was not born in the USA because they _want_ to believe that their political opponents are cheating at the process. And Fox News simply delivers to them what they want. Cater to people's worst desires and worst beliefs... you know, those beliefs that no one else is willing to discuss... and you'll become a trustworthy friend of theirs. Similarly: people want to be optimistic about COVID19. They want to believe in a cure (that isn't that cure that liberals are pushing). So now you have Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. Give them the optimism they so desire, and they'll believe you. People are right to be scared and afraid of COVID19. People are right to search for a cure and have optimism. But its when these media outlets feed on these fears and pushes misinformation that things get dangerous.